The Instigator
smartgirl4433
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Guidestone
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should gay marriage be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Guidestone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 54915
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

smartgirl4433

Pro

We are all told we are born the way we are weather that is without a certain limb or a mental disability. When it come to sexual orientation people seen to be confused. The majority is born attracted to the opposite sex, and we can't help that its just the way we were born, but when people are born and they like the same sex people that don't agree with it get to offensive. Why can't people love the same sex? You might answer that question with " Because God said so." Which is very invalid. Yes, he may have said that one can't love the same sex, but the Bible also says (not in exact wording) that we should love everyone no matter who or what they are.
Guidestone

Con

I accept my opponent's challenge, and hope we can understand the importance of the issue at hand.

1. Born that way
This is an often an argument presented. To be "born that way" it must be in your genes, which makes you who you are. "Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings"; and "They found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual. For non-identical twins, the rate was about 22%, showing that about 1 in 5 twins who were homosexual had a homosexual brother also. For non-twin brothers, the concordance rate was 9.2%. Interesting enough, Bailey and Pillard found that the concordance rate in adopted brothers was 11.2%" [1]. First, if homosexuality is genetic then it should be 100% with identical twin, who share all the same genes. Second, "The concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%" [1]. Homosexuality just like those other things are due to heavy environment influence. Further, Homosexuality being genetic poses a real problem with natural selection. Natural Selection is "the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive" [2]. Since, homosexuals can't reproduce with each other how then could they pass on their genes? They couldn't, so natural selection would have "selected" them out of the gene pool. Concluding, homosexuals are not born that way any more than people are born religious or racist.

2. Religion
I think my opponents reference about loving everyone is about Matthew 22:39, which states "And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" [3]. This is based on a misinterpretation. Honestly, there are lots of things I do that, I hate, and that part I don't love about myself. Which is where the famous phrase "hate the sin not the sinner", because I will treat everyone with respect, but I can still hate actions they do; This would be loving thy neighbor like I love myself. Further, if we are suppose to love everyone no matter what should we also endorse incest, or polygamy because this same conversation could be used to support either of those even those both of those are condemned in the Bible? Also, wouldn't that also mean I would have to love, without passing judgement, a child molester or rapist? If it does, this is certainly no religion that would ever want be serious because it pardons everyone from their sins without punishment. Concluding, the bible doesn't say love everyone no matter who or what they are.

3. Marriage is more than love
"Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [4]. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world." [4] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives." [4]

Sources
[1] http://www.fairmormon.org...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://biblehub.com...
[4] http://www.scribd.com...
Debate Round No. 1
smartgirl4433

Pro

I thank my opponent for using rich context. It is very well written.

1. Marriage has to include the ability to have kids.

The "normal" family includes a mother and father and two or three children. Just because gays or lesbians aren't able to have children doesn't exactly mean that they can't get married. There is always adoption, and that is just as good because those children were given up because they weren't wanted by their biological parents. Women can always get a sperm donation to have kids and men can give their sperm to a willing women to raise their child. The only thing about having the women raise the child is that they would want to keep it.

2. This concept of its genetic is incorrect.

As it may be genetic between twins what about children with no siblings that come out gay? Obviously if they have a mother and a father they didn't get it from them. So where would they have gotten it from? Well, it definitely wasn't a choice because did we chose to like the opposite sex? No, we did not most people are just born being attracted to the opposite sex, and even if they chose, why would someone chose to live their life being bullied for being different, and then not being able to be with someone that they love? No one would want that.

3. What if something were to happen to their spouse?

If a gay or lesbian couple were to get married in a state that allows it, and then they were to travel and something fatal were to happen to there opposite they wouldn't be able to go see them in the hospital to be there for them if or when the pass over. Would you want that?

4. Lastly gay marriage is a civil right.

In the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia concluded that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man." Same-sex marriage should be given the same ruling given to iterraicial marriages. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) said that same-sex marriage is "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time."

http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for their response.

1. Marriage has to include the ability to have kids.

First, adoption isn't because the women doesn't want the child, but rather it is in the child's best interest because she feels that she can not give the best for her child. Second, children raised by homosexuals are not the best environment for children. Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy [1]. Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. An Apr. 2001 study published inAmerican Sociological Review suggested that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior [2]. In the 1997 book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development, Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, observed that 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship, compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers [3]. Children do best when raised by their biological parents [7].

2. This concept of its genetic is incorrect.

I never said being gay is choice, but I did say it is something that is changeable since it is not genetic like skin color or gender.

3. What if something were to happen to their spouse?

This could be simply fixed with reforming visitation laws to include anyone the patient wants. This is not a problem unique to homosexual marriage.

4. Lastly gay marriage is a civil right.

Sexual Preference does not meet the requirements for civil rights. The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics" [4]. It might be possible that you could prove widespread discrimination, but it is nothing compared to the 1960s. We have never made Homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, or have separate schools. Next, we have economic disadvantage. A 2012 study shows that Homosexuals actually tend to have more money [5]. So, there is no economic disadvantage. Third, sexuality is not immutable. There have been many people who have changed orientation [6]. There wasn't a former woman, without surgery, so sexual preference doesn't meet this criteria either. Concluding, sexual preference isn't a civil right.

Many supporters of homosexual marriage make the comparison to interracial marriage but this isn't a valid comparison. The First Anti-miscegenation Laws was passed in Virginia in 1691 [8]. It is important to note the colonial Virginia started in 1607 [9]. So, there was a period of 84 years before these laws ever existed. Also, . Nine states never had any Anti-miscegenation laws [10]. Further, "no nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was ever enacted" [11], and no state recognized Homosexual marriages until 2004 [12]. It is also important to note that "The laws in U.S. states were established to maintain 'racial purity' and white supremacy" [11], and laws defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman were not meant to ensure heterosexual supremacy, or anything like why interracial marriage was.

Sources
[1] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
[2] http://faculty.law.miami.edu...
[3] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
[4] http://www.lc.org...
[5] http://www.leagle.com...
[6] http://www.voices-of-change.org...
[7] http://www.familystructurestudies.com...
[8] http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu...
[9] http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org...
[10] http://www.tn.gov...
[11] https://www.princeton.edu...
[12] http://www.glad.org...


Debate Round No. 2
smartgirl4433

Pro

smartgirl4433 forfeited this round.
Guidestone

Con

I extend all arguments in hope my opponent will respond.
Debate Round No. 3
smartgirl4433

Pro

smartgirl4433 forfeited this round.
Guidestone

Con

I extend all arguments again in hope my opponent will respond.
Debate Round No. 4
smartgirl4433

Pro

smartgirl4433 forfeited this round.
Guidestone

Con

It is unfortunate the my opponent forfeited so many rounds. I was looking forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
His comment must have been removed. It was intended for LifeMeansGodIsGood... A member who is famous for hateful preaching.
Posted by smartgirl4433 2 years ago
smartgirl4433
Who exactly are you directing this to?
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
LMGIG, for once feel free to actually prove anything that you have said. All of your ranting and raving is completely ignorant to reality and you refuse to provide any sources or evidence for the absurd crap that you consistently spew. Please do us all a favor and get a clue or stop spamming every discussion about the bible, God and homosexuals with your factless, moronic preaching.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
smartgirl4433GuidestoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited R3, R4, & R5. This is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Due to this, Pro loses Conduct points. S & G - Tie. Right away I noticed a spelling error from Pro in R1 with the word *weather* which I believe in the context given was supposed to be *whether*. Regardless of that, there were no major spelling or grammatical issues in this debate. Therefore, I consider it a tie. If Con would like me to award S & G points due to that one error, please PM me, I feel at this point it is minuscule. Arguments - Con. What solidified this was R2 in which Con presented some very strong rebuttals including the statistics about the children's homoerotic developments under homosexual parents. The civil rights arguments was also extremely strong. I wish this debate would have continued! Con took arguments though. Sources - Con. Both utilized them but Con provided more sourced evidence than Pro which further strengthened the validity of his arguments. Good Job Con.